Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

What Collective Insanity Looks Like, Right-Wing Edition

Most of us are cognizant of what left-wing political dementia looks like, of how it presents in its subjects, a prime manifestation being the assignment to Obama of quasi-messianic status. Political dementia knows no partisan limitations, and the following, then, is an oddly disquieting presentation of right-wing political nutbaggery.

Blogospheric commentary on this spectacle has been, as one would expect, voluminous and predictable, with the left hauling out the tropes of populist conservative racism, and referencing the dreaded Southern Strategy of the GOP realignment. It cannot be denied that there is a kernel of truth to that analysis, given the occasional presence of stuffed-monkey toting nutbars at McCain rallies last autumn, but racism cannot suffice to explain the above manifestation of political dementia. Race, after all, is often itself a trope, a convenient adumbration of a broad array of political, cultural, and economic concerns, and in this instance, is not even the object of the ire of the crazies at the Delaware town hall meeting. Rather, what transpires in this video is altogether more interesting, more subtle, and, for that very reason, more profound: those who have latched onto a certain cause have essentially reified, distilling, as it were, into a physical symbol, a profound sense of political and cultural alienation - dis-identification - from a politician, the present configuration of the political establishment, and the direction of the country. An inability to identify with a president and his political programme became a judgment that he was deficient in his Americanism, according to a variety of partisan metrics; and that judgment, in turn, was crystallized, literalized, in the claim that the president was not even an American citizen.

At this point, one might as well apply the strictures against conspiracy theorizing previously and fruitfully discussed on this site to the bizarre movement now setting down roots on the right, as exemplified by the embedded video clip.

Comments (31)

Max, timing is everything. Maybe you should have waited for the dust to settle after The O's self inflicted mortification on the racist Gates thing, the racism being that of Gates and The O, speaking of kernels of truth, your cute throwaway shot at the Repubs.

It matters less to me that there are overexcited and ignorant people on the right than that we have a president who seeks to transform America in a manner most ugly and deleterious. I conclude from this that we have different priorities, yours not encompassing an aversion to the ancient eccentricities and fevers of a permanently fixated and monomaniacal left.

So be it. But you might at least make a show of occasional disdain, for forms sake.
After all, the small group of the right wing ignorant occupy a place much less important than a man whose ability to lie is matched only by a misshapen ideology and an incompetence of depressing magnitude.

John, that's not it at all. I'm averse to the fevers and eccentricities of the left; it's merely that I expect them. I expect better from the right, because, well, we should expect better from ourselves, or at least from the political constellations in which we orbit.

While we have our disagreements from time to time, this post is pitch perfect, as is your response to johnt.

I suspect you wouldn't go as far as me, but I believe this phenomenon of an "inability to identify with a president and his political program" which then becomes "a judgment that he was deficient in his Americanism, according to a variety of partisan metrics; and that judgment, in turn, was crystallized, literalized, in the claim that the president was not even an American citizen" creeping into the rhetoric of those like Larry Auster who make claims that the President "means us harm" or Rush Limbaugh who claims he "wants the President to fail".

I maintain we are better off using rhetoric that attacks the policies or "political program" we disagree with or that we think will be harmful, as opposed to the motives and/or identity of those who propose such policies. For more on this topic, see some recent Conor Friedersdorf blog posts, especially this one:

Have to disagree with you about that, Jeff. How could I possibly want Obama to succeed, given that I don't want him to do what he wants to do? _Of course_ I want him to fail. I disagree with his program; I want him to fail in implementing it. The idea that this is some horrible thing to say seems to me very odd, and like a sort of "we've gotta always look like nice guys even when that means not saying obvious things" principle, which isn't a principle I would ever adopt. :-) But back to our regular programing. I didn't meant to threadjack.

Since when is it "nutty" to insist that a provision of the US Constitution be honestly and directly met by a candidate for office? John McCain provided proof of citizenship when challenged. Why not this creep who's now POTUS?

A Reserve Army Major gets orders to deploy to Iraq. He challenges those orders as illegal due to their coming from a President who has failed to prove his legitimacy as President. Suddenly the orders to deploy are revoked and then just as suddenly, he's fired from his company which does work for the DOD.

Of course, Obama could make every mildly curious doubter look like an idiot by releasing his actual long form birth certificate recorded at the time in Hawaii but he won't. Odd that.

You make a fair point, but I think a lot of people don't hear the distinction you (and Rush) are making between bad policies and the overall "health" of our country because in some sense, whether we like it or not, President Obama represents us all and is in charge of safeguarding us and promoting the pursuit of happiness. We (you, me and Rush) agree that many of the President's policy decisions are harmful and may even be dangerous -- but while I can't speak for you or Rush, I certainly hope that despite my misgivings none of the President's bad foreign policy decisions (for example) will promote the spread of radical Islam or lead to more terrorism committed against Americans. In that sense, I hope the President succeeds, even if I think he probably won't.

You make a fair point, but I think a lot of people don't hear the distinction you (and Rush) are making between bad policies and the overall "health" of our country because in some sense, whether we like it or not, President Obama represents us all and is in charge of safeguarding us and promoting the pursuit of happiness. We (you, me and Rush) agree that many of the President's policy decisions are harmful and may even be dangerous -- but while I can't speak for you or Rush, I certainly hope that despite my misgivings none of the President's bad foreign policy decisions (for example) will promote the spread of radical Islam or lead to more terrorism committed against Americans. In that sense, I hope the President succeeds, even if I think he probably won't.

If you listen to Obama talk or read anything we are certain he wrote, you'll find a very poor writer and a gassy, rambling speaker. Obama is a narcissist who is glib enough to give some folks the impression he is knowledgeable about a lot of things but he's always out of his depth in any topic that delves beyond platitudes and superficial attitudes.

Obama is shallow and his intellectual ability is weak, he's an ideologue who hides his ignorance and stupidity behind a facade of meaningless tropes and useless verbiage.

A large part of his incomprehensible speech and rhetoric is that like most radical Dems, he has to hide what he really believes and co-opts conservative language when he means the opposite. He doesn't like big government either, taxes aren't taxes, they're investments. Health care reform will save money, not ration treatment. Etc, etc.

His various tics, "let me be clear" "understand that" "it's not about me" are the same sort of giveaways like Nixon's "I am not a crook."

He's a flim flam man, and a pretty good one except that all flim flam men are fundamentally weak and pathetic, and they are all at odds with society.

As a Marxist and half black man, he hates America and wants to wreck it. He thinks he is noble and wants to transform us (especially us misbegotten whites), but the real source of his anger and rage (mentioned often in his books, he's always filled with rage) is the fury at life, God, parents, and self (rage rather than depression for most men) that wants to destroy it all.

We have elected the most traitorous sort of man as our President, and even more ironically, he may not even be a legitimate American citizen. That would simply be incredibly precious, if true. In any event, he doesn't consider himself an American, but a black outsider of a race that is cruelly imprisoned by an oppressive white system that needs to be overthrown for the good of all; whites, too. (He's that magnanimous.)

Exhibit A for ineffectual political rhetoric (and it gets bonus points because many statements are factually incorrect):

"As a Marxist and half black man, he hates America and wants to wreck it. He thinks he is noble and wants to transform us (especially us misbegotten whites), but the real source of his anger and rage (mentioned often in his books, he's always filled with rage) is the fury at life, God, parents, and self (rage rather than depression for most men) that wants to destroy it all.

We have elected the most traitorous sort of man as our President, and even more ironically, he may not even be a legitimate American citizen. That would simply be incredibly precious, if true. In any event, he doesn't consider himself an American, but a black outsider of a race that is cruelly imprisoned by an oppressive white system that needs to be overthrown for the good of all; whites, too. (He's that magnanimous.)"

mark,

Care to explain to us what you mean by calling Obama a "Marxist"? Are you suggesting that he'd like the State to take over all private property and the means of production? That he'd like to kill capitalists and other class traitors? And what's your evidence for the statement that Obama "hates America"? Does he think America is flawed and does he want to "fix" these perceived flaws? Yes. But when has he said America is so bad that the very idea of the country causes him hatred? I could go on, but to make such outrageous claims about the President's political philosophy and/or inner state of mind would seem to require just a shred of evidence.

I do think Obama is somewhat obsessed with racial issues -- check out Steve Sailer's book for more on this topic.

Yes, I have read most of Sailer's book. Are you being deliberately obtuse here, Jeff, that you are completely unaware of Obama's fundamental beliefs, the company he keeps, the actions he espoused, taught, agitated, sued over, his automatic racism towards whites evidenced by his latest gaffe, and his hope to redistribute the wealth slip of the tongue during the campaign, his wife's fundamental distaste for America and for whites on the stump and while writing at Princeton (just like Sotomayor)?

When he says he wants to transform America, what in hell do you think he means? He isn't talking about a chicken in every pot or what's good for general Motors is what's good for America (except that nationalizing GM and every industry is what he thinks is good for us).

Gee, that bit about greedy tonsil cutting doctors, the greedy pharma companies, the greedy oil companies, the greedy bankers. Everyone in business is greedy except him and his friends. I guess hating the free market and profit making isn't Marxist, Jeff, and wanting the government to run everything like health care, business, and banking isn't a sign of a sick and twisted personality and bankrupt intellect.

I guess going around the world apologizing for all the harm America has done while ignoring every accomplishment and good means he really loves him his national history and culture.

I guess his being a candidate/member for a Communist/Socialist party in Chicago says nothing about his actual beliefs?

He doesn't think America has some flaws he wants to fix. He wants to reconstruct it entirely.

Or maybe I'm just "a typical white person" like his granny, or I'm one of the "white folks, that's just how they'll do ya."

With all due respect, you didn't answer my questions. Furthermore, you continue to write as if you have knowledge of Obama's innermost thoughts -- so you say Obama "hates the free market and profit making" but again, this seems to me a gross exageration of his fairly standard liberal views. Yes, many liberals don't appreciate how the market works and the importance of profit, but that doesn't make them Marxist. In fact, as we've been discussing on this blog lately, there is more to life than just the market/profit, which is what the Church teaches and is certainly a subject of Benedict's recent Encycical. So it seems strange to conclude that just because you think Obama doesn't appreciate market forces as well as the rest of us good free-market conservatives, he is therefore a Marxist. We might as well call every single Western industrialized nation that has higher levels of taxation, nationalized health-care and even state-owned industries as Marxist governments and condemn them and all the liberal Democrats who support such misguided ideas (and I really do think they are misguided) as Maxists. You are being intellectually silly, just like the "Crazy Birther Lady" and the next time you respond to me I suggest you answer my questions -- what is a Marxist and what evidence do you have that Obama would secretly like to outlaw private property and nationalize the means of production for all goods and services.

"Innermost thoughts'? You judge the tree by the fruit, the man by his words and actions. If you don't know what a Marxist is, then I'm not going to explain it to you. Go read a book about Statism or Levin's Liberty and Tyranny.

If you'll open your eyes, you'll notice he is already outlawing private property and nationalizing industries, and services. When the government takes your property willy nilly or regulates it to the point where it tells you what you can and can't do with it to an enormous extent, it has effectively outlawed private property and business.

If a government steals over half the value of your labor, exactly what kind of a state do you think you're living in? You are being absurdly and deliberately obtuse about Obama.

Obama is not in the same class as the socialists who emasculated Germany, England et al. The fact that he can't make the USA a totalitarian state overnight or rather into the "soft" tyranny De Toqueville prophesied doesn't alter who he is at heart.

If you don't understand the Cloward-Piven Strategy that Obama is currently trying to implement, then look it up. Who the hell do you think started ACORN? Marxists. Who worked for and supported ACORN and accepted and believed in its Marxist agenda? Obama.

Listen, back in the day when I was a mere lad of fifteen in Milwaukee, I and a few friends were recruited by SDSers from Madison. We were pretty damn naive and were terribly manipulated and used for some nefarious (criminal) and just stupid things.

But we saw through them soon enough. I didn't have to read their "innermost thoughts" to discover they had a sick agenda, one that used people and didn't give a damn for anything but getting power to hurt others (in their idea of utopia).

Later, when I worked in a factory shop, I attended some local union meetings and met the same radicals infiltrating and trying to take over the Local. They were full of the same s**t as that great community organizer, Obama.

You want a definition? From Wiki: Marxism is a political-economic theory that presents a materialist conception of history, a non-capitalist vision of capitalism and other types of society, and a non-religious view of human liberation. Closely related to the ideology of communism.

That's part of it. Mostly its a utopian religion in which its believers use any means to achieve power in order to radically transform the world no matter the cost in human life, health, welfare, dignity and justice.

How about Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radicals. Wiki: He is generally considered to be the founder of modern socialist community organizing in America, the political practice of organizing communities to act in common self-interest using Marxist socialist principles.

Who's a devoted follower of Alinsky? Obama (and Hillary Clinton. Wrote her dissertation on him. Went to Berkeley to put his work into practice for the murderous Black Panthers.). Who else espouses Alinksy and his Marxism? ACORN. Who worked for ACORN and trained disciples in Alinsky style community organizing? Obama.

Yeah, folks I guess walking, acting, talking, and squawking like a duck doesn't make you a duck.

Has Obama ever endorsed the Alinsky's Marxism? I like many of the things Slavoj Zizek says, but that doesn't make me a Leninist. What matters is if I endorse his Leninism.

Where has Obama endorsed dialectical materialism? Where has he said he wishes to overthrow capitalism? Or where has he said religion is a false form of consciousness? Just because he sometimes associated with people who may have thought that (I'm not convinced that Alinsky himself was an orthodox Marxist), doesn't mean he believes these things himself. If that were the case, Protestants who march alongside Catholics at pro-life rallies would believe in papal infallibility.

Max, thanks for the polite response.
I believe that in balance there does exist a proclivity on your part to go after the right in a manner and consistency which at least intuitively would lead one, me, to suspect that a weighted sympathy leans however delicately to the left.
Considering that it would be both arrogant and idiotic on my part to inform you on your beliefs, a fairly common practice in a culture suffocating in it's ignorance, I will close down on this thread.

May I hope for a future in which I can observe you training your rhetorical artillery to the left of the political battlefield ?
If so grape and canister may be used promiscuously, the rules of land warfare be dammed.

FWIW, I think Mark Butterworth is exactly right about Obama's radical left agenda, its collectivist presuppositions, its destructive political and economic purposes, and its rootless, even imaginary, attachment to reality. Our president is an empty suit. With any luck at all, he will fail quickly and thereby render himself a one term president. He will fail; of that I am sure. We will suffer as a result. But may Providence make it quick.

Ilíon:Ah, so you *have* seen real evidence that the Obamessiah is a natural born US citizen?
Apart from the whole 'Born in the USA' thing, you mean?

James:If there was serious doubt you don't think Hilary Clinton or John McCain would have mentioned it?

No, I don't; and *especially* not McCain. And, in any event, what does that have to do with the price of tea in Manchuria?

Does the nation, and its Constitution, belong to the politicians? If the politicians collectively agree to ignore or overlook or de-emphasize or deny Constitutional some issue, does the Constitution become null and void on that point?

First off, the courts are never going to look at this. Even if damning evidence were to emerge that Obama is indeed a Kenyan or Indonesian, there's simply no way they'll ever invalidate his election.

So that's the point of departure, which means that everything that comes thereafter is futile.

Futile, ------------ but not necessarily wasteful.

The Constitution has certain requirements on certain elected offices, such as those related to age for instance. We're all aware of them.

So far, other than some flimsy, easily acquired "certificate of live birth," which anyone could acquire in Hawaii, no evidence has been put forth demonstrating to a finality that that Obama was indeed born within the jurisdiction of the United States. And as for that "certificate" that the media loves to use as if it were the final word on the subject, all should be aware that Hawaii, under their law, is OBLIGATED to tender one ON DEMAND, now just think of that, if someone comes up to the appropriate office in Hawaii and asks for that document, the state is OBLIGATED to tender the document, and cannot avoid so tendering, even if that state office has no proof or evidence of that birth happening within their jurisidiction.

In addition, from what we know of Obama's Kenyan relatives, they all insist that he was indeed born in their presence. His Grandmother has provided chapter and verse on the particulars thereof.

So, to sum up, NO American, no Doctor, no nurse, no assistant at his birth has been located, ----------- indeed NONE has been identified, which would allow a quick check if the time frames jive. We can't check if Doctor So-and-So was indeed available at the time that Obama was said to have been born in American jurisdiction.

If only some of the relavant details were provided, this entire thing could be resolved.

But for some reason, ------------------ and whatever reason it is, it's entirely unpersuasive, those details, those surrounding and context providing details are being withheld.

And some are content to take the word of a guy who has proven repeatedly that he takes a very post-modern view of truth, which he would probably place in quotation marks, so as to note its quaint and obsolescent status.

IlíonNo, I don't; and *especially* not McCain. And, in any event, what does that have to do with the price of tea in Manchuria?

You're right. What possible reason could Clinton or McCain have for disqualifying their main rival?

That only leaves us with images of multiple angles of Obama's certified birth certificate - a document good enough for the State Department; countless harried Hawaii officials, none of whom have given the slightest indication of irregularity; contemporaneous birth announcements in two Hawaii newspapers; and Obama's parents explicitly placing stating his birthplace as Hawaii in the 1960s when there would have been no reason to lie.

Apart from that, I guess there's not much evidence at all.

An attorneyAnd as for that "certificate" ... all should be aware that Hawaii, under their law, is OBLIGATED to tender one ON DEMAND ... even if that state office has no proof or evidence of that birth happening within their jurisidiction [sic].

Hawaii gives away U.S. Citizenship like candy! That sound you hear is millions of illegal immigrants mailing in their requests for a "Born in Hawaii" certificate.

Oh, wait, you're being disingenuous.

In addition, from what we know of Obama's Kenyan relatives, they all insist that he was indeed born in their presence. His Grandmother has provided chapter and verse on the particulars thereof.

Only if one ignores the part of that conversation when they all say the complete opposite. Which would be dishonest. So I won't.

But if you look at the specifics of how you get such a certificate, you'll see that by Hawaii law the state is OBLIGATED to tender the document to all who demand it. And no review of evidence, no fact-finding, no cursory check is required. The state tenders the document.

Now why the state has it that way, I couldn't for the life of me explain. But that's how it is in Hawaii.

And that's the document that the media uses to brush away all objections to his status.

Other than that document, which Hawaii hands out to any and all who ask, we've seen no evidence that supports the claim that Obama is an American. Indeed, to the contrary, we've a good deal of hard evidence, {repeated testimony by multiple eye-witnesses}, that Obama was born elsewhere.

So for all of those who flip out that there's nothing to this, ----------- than they're dismissing eye-witness testimony by Kenyans.

And as for his family members saying he "wasn't born" in Kenya, --------------- don't know where you're getting taht from. Perhaps wishing away untoward details will avail, -------- have at it.

It means nothing to me.

Because as I said, even if the Angel Gabriel were to appear and swear by the all Holy that Obama isn't an American, no federal court is going to entertain the notion. So this whole thing is going nowhere, and nowhere fast.

You're right. What possible reason could Clinton or McCain have for disqualifying their main rival?

Did Clinton really want to ruin her chances at a political future by being the one to destroy a black candidate for president who had the backing of most of the Democrat power centers? She could have pushed the issue and would have been stonewalled and her political career ended. BTW, it was a Hillary supporter that started the ball rolling on this.

McCain is a different story. He pretty much packed it in when Obama won the nomination. He had at least one member of his staff say he, the staffer, couldn't campaign against the first truly legitimate black candidate.

That only leaves us with images of multiple angles of Obama's certified birth certificate - a document good enough for the
State Department;

It's a Certificate of Live Birth. It is not a birth certificate.

countless harried Hawaii officials, none of whom have given the slightest indication of irregularity;

I believe only one has admitted to seeing it and pretty much just confirmed Hawaii has the birth certificate.

contemporaneous birth announcements in two Hawaii newspapers;

They list an address where neighbors who have lived there from before the announcements state that they do not remember the Obama's living there.

and Obama's parents explicitly placing stating his birthplace as Hawaii in the 1960s when there would have been no reason to lie.

If they wanted him to be a US citizen they did.

Look, I'm pretty agnostic on this whole affair but there are some anomalies that can easily be solved. All Obama has to do is produce his long form birth certificate. It's the same thing I have to show at the DMV. It's not a top secret document. So John, why doesn't Obama just produce it?

Yes, yes it is. Ask Hawaii for a copy of your birth certificate, that's what you get. (Assuming, of course that Hawaii has your birth certificate on record.) That's what you give to the state department, that's what they accept for a passport application.

What does it say at the bottom?
"This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding"

But if you look at the specifics of how you get such a certificate, you'll see that by Hawaii law the state is OBLIGATED to tender the document to all who demand it. And no review of evidence, no fact-finding, no cursory check is required. The state tenders the document.

ChrisDid Clinton really want to ruin her chances at a political future by being the one to destroy a black candidate for president... McCain ...had at least one member of his staff say he, the staffer, couldn't campaign against the first truly legitimate black candidate.

The "certificate of live birth" functions much like the bogus ids that are often made available for illegal Mexicans, and made available by city governments or sometimes state governments.

If you recall in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court said that American citizenship is a matter for the federal government, not the states, {thus rendering illegal Illinois' conferral of citizenship on Dred Scott}. Now though that decision has been much criticized, effectively citizenship is still a federal matter. Now Hawaii can tender all the documents they want, as California has for illegal Mexicans, but that documentation doesn't in any alter citizenship status.

What Hawaii did was make available for their citizens a method of obtaining some documentation, but Hawaii didn't in any way obligate the state offices to determine the validity of the requests. Moreover, it's probable that Hawaii legislation was written before the massive illegal onslaught that commenced in the 70s.

This isn't real difficult to understand.

Hawaii's "certificate of live birth" is wholly worthless.

So what don't we know.

We don't know where he was born.

We don't know which hospital, which house or which cab he was delivered in.

We don't know the name of the Doctor.

Nor do we know who assisted the Doctor, or the midwife.

Every particular which could corroborate his claim to being born in Hawaii is unknown, or at least unstated by his supporters.

All we have is the entirely worthless "certificate of live birth," coupled with a host of unanswered questions.

Now some seem content with that situation, and that's up to them. I'm not going to knock myself out trying to convince people who are a priori determined to avoid asking questions, questions that the media is trying very hard to squelch.

We've seen states enact driver provisions for illegals, --------- without altering the status of the illegals as still "illegal."

The "certificate of live birth" did not, and what's more, CANNOT be determinative and dispositive on the question.

And for someone who supposedly has a host of evidence to support his claim to citizenship, the Obama team is remaining awfully quiet with the particulars. And all the while, there's a vast scrubbing effort going on behind the scenes.

His college application, as well as his law school application have not been made public. His application for the Bar, ------ that too has remained unperused.

One point against those who question Obama's birth in the U.S. that I don't think I've ever seen made is that the short-form certificate says it was filed on August 8. If we take it that it really was obtained at the time regardless, that would have to mean that the mother flew back with a newborn only four days old to file the paperwork for a short-form birth certificate! Seems highly implausible, and even more implausible is that she got someone in the U.S. to file the paperwork while she and the baby were still out of the country. If the non-citizen theory isn't _simply_ to be a conspiracy theory, it has to fit together in some way such that at the time the people involved were acting in good faith and the thing only became an issue later. But that means that both the filing on the 8th and the newspaper announcements of the birth on the 4th are pretty strong evidence of a birth in Hawaii.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.